A Word of Caution

As I suggested in the previous post, setting a parameter for biodiversity loss is perhaps the most problematic of the boundaries; it is, however, not alone in this respect. No concept or theory should be accepted on the grounds of the good of its intention, or without being explored critically first, and Rockström’s is no exception to this. Whilst this blog is concerned with how the boundaries concept can help facilitate a response to global environmental change, it is important to bear in mind it is a work in progress.

Simon Lewis, writing for Nature, recommends that the Planetary Boundaries theory is met with a degree of caution, that whilst it is “compelling” it also has the “potential to shift political focus to the wrong areas”. He identifies two flaws within the concept and warns that ignoring these could undermine the goals of the policies it looks to help.

The first flaw is a technical one: that some parameters are fixed limits, not boundaries. This is best explained using an example – the Phosphorus cycle for instance. As a parameter, the concern that anthropogenic fixing of Phosphorus is seriously damaging the marine environment will drive investment in technology to combat the associated impacts. However, this overlooks the fact that Phosphorus is a non-renewable resource and one that humans are very dependent on as a key plant nutrient – thus this more meaningfully represents a “depletion-limit”. When viewed as a boundary, little effort is made to stop the depletion of phosphate supplies, but instead to simply reduce the environmental impacts. Rather, we should be emphasising this as a depletion-limit in order to “shift focus to technology that could help safeguard stocks”.

The second flaw relates to scale: A global focus on 9 thresholds could spread political will thinly – and it is already weak. Essentially, some boundaries could just as effectively be negotiated at regional scale, with a select few (such as CO₂ emissions and climate change) being pursued as a global collective. A good point is made here, that solutions to regional problems in certain places can be of global significance aggregately – not all of the boundaries need be pursued by everyone.

A final word of caution from Lewis warns that too strong a focus on returning the Earth to earlier-Holocene-like conditions (as Rockström et al. promote) risks side-lining other very important issues that do not fit the concept, but which are of equal importance – the inordinate amount of floating plastic waste in the Pacific Ocean, for instance. So what can we take from the boundaries concept? Well, the idea of setting definite and tangible targets can play a pivotal role in future policy making and can facilitate more specific action plans (i.e. regional/industry sector targeting). Most importantly from Lewis’ article, is the realisation that not everyone, not all industries, not all countries need pursue each and every boundary. If every business and tackled the single boundary they contributed to most, the overall impact would be enormous.